Archive for January, 2005
tadfad.com’s official platform (vol. 1)
#1) Significant Reduction in Defense Spending
As the war in Iraq has so clearly illustrated, war is expensive. The U.S. has already spent some $150 billion dollars and will likely spend another $100 billion in the years ahead.
This is on top of gross overspending on defense projects that have little or no practical benefit to the nation. The [failing] Star Wars Missile Defense program has already cost well over $50 billion and may cost up to $200 billion. All this for a program that has repeatedly failed missile tests is ultimately not needed–since the fall of the Soviet Union, only our allies have the means to launch an ICBM capable of hitting U.S. soil.
The U.S. currently spends approximately as much on national security as the rest of the world combined. To put it bluntly, this is insane. If our close G8 allies can somehow manage to defend their interests without devoting half of their government spending, so should we. The cold war ended a decade ago. (As difficult as it is for the neoconservatives to accept.) We must move forward and reduce our defense spending dramatically. I propose a reduction of 25% by 2025.
The [holy?] war on terrorism is best fought with diplomacy and education, not fighter jets and missile shields. When America regains its place in the world as a beacon of democracy and freedom (in fact, not only in rhetoric), we will find a world in which our enemies are few and weak.
Filed under Uncategorized : Comments (0) : Jan 28th, 2005
Social Security
Mr. Bush has done his patriotic duty of informing the American people of a looming crisis: the bankrupting of social security. This is a crisis that must be dealt with immediately, as any delay will result in certain demise for an important social benefit system that supports millions of people. (Once social security goes, it won’t be long before the U.S. is reduced to roving bands of anarchists in a desert wasteland, a la Mad Max).
Of course, this just isn’t true. The crisis of social security is comparable to the crisis of Saddam Huessain, pre Iraq War. Social security must be changed, to be sure. But just as Saddam posed no critical, imminent threat to the U.S., we have somewhere between 15 and 30 years before social security is in any risk of bankrupt. It is unfair, unwise, and immoral to present the current social security situation as a crisis. The Whitehouse is using this powerful rhetoric to ignite fear in the minds of the public to gather support for radical changes that will surely be hotly contested.
Social security is heading for a large, gaping hole. We loving refer to this hole as the “Baby Boomers”. There is a bulge in the age histogram for the U.S. population, with many more ‘Boomers set to retire in the coming years than current workers can support with the current system. No Democrats who oppose social security reform doubt this fact. The other side of the coin is that the Baby Boomers have been paying more in taxes than social security has been paying out in benefits. This will continue for the next decade or beyond. At some point, the balance will shift and social security will begin to run in deficit mode. Even at the time of this shift, it will not be instantly bankrupt. Decades of surplus allow some time to reform the program and make the necessary changes to balance this deficit and make the program again self-sustaining. Most estimates conclude that social security will not be truly bankrupt until the middle of the century, with no changes to the benefits or taxes.
Social security is not in crisis, by any stretch of the imagination. Social security is in need of adjustments. Currently, any earnings above $87,900 are not taxed for social security. This maximum should be increased, or possibly done away with entirely. Those of us fortunate enough to earn six figures or more clearly benefit from the public institutions at the foundation of our democracy. Why not invest in the future success of the U.S. through additional tax dollars?
Clearly, the Bush Administration is opposed to any tax increase. Their proposal is to allow social security money to be invested in the stock market. As outlined, this change to the system would likely benefit 90% of Americans. But for that bottom 10%, it would be detrimental. (And that bottom 10% has already been screwed by the Bushies time and time again.) Social security is meant to provide a guaranteed level of support, no matter what. Private investment undermines that guarantee.
Filed under Uncategorized : Comments (0) : Jan 23rd, 2005
